Transparency is core expectation of local government. So, when the MUD Board recently broke 15 months of silence to issue a public statement on their ongoing civil lawsuit, it should have been a step forward. Instead, it reeks of damage control, and the timing before the election confirms the suspicion. Worse, they conveniently left out the three things that a disinterested taxpayer would care about most: what the objective is, what they’ve spent so far, and how much more it will cost to finish it up.
Let’s talk about the price tag the Board left out. Through May 2026, the MUD had already funneled $195,767.41 into legal fees. With the appellate cases moving quickly, that number is likely approaching $300,000. But that’s just what they’ve paid their own lawyers. On February 6, a judge ordered the MUD to pay $119,181.01 in the defendants' legal fees and costs. That judgment is paused during the MUD's appeal, but if unsuccessful, the court has already awarded a conditional $70,500 penalty against the MUD on top. If the defendants’ appeal (a separate case from the appeal just mentioned) is successful, the judgments against the district will grow significantly. But remember: this case isn’t even close to trial. This bill is just the cost of arguing over whether the MUD’s allegations are legally sufficient to bring to a jury. Taking this all the way to trial means discovery, expert witnesses, pre-trial motions, and a full trial. It won't get faster, easier, or cheaper.
I am not a party to this lawsuit. But I am a taxpayer footing the bill, and I took the responsibility to read the actual court filings. (This is not a small undertaking; lawyers are paid to create one-sided filings that sound terrifying without rebuttal.) What I found was a troubling disconnect between the board's rhetoric and the legal reality. It’s what compelled me to enter the fray and run for the MUD Board alongside two of the targeted residents, David and Linda. I’m running because I want justice, not to make a cynical power grab.
The board wants you to believe this lawsuit is a righteous crusade to protect the community. But their own statement betrays them. They complain that the defendants cost the District money with “repetitive requests for information.” Let’s be clear: Public Information Requests are a fundamental taxpayer right. Rehashing that old canard in a legal update is a massive Freudian slip. It exposes the board’s true motive: weaponizing our tax dollars to punish political dissent.
If you saw “assault” and “false imprisonment” and concluded the allegations must be serious, consider this: No physical contact whatsoever has been alleged, only theories of subjective fear. If you want to see my interpretation of the specific allegations, including the real reason a contractor quit and the baffling circumstances of the plaintiff’s subjective fear, you can read more here.
But the most chilling part of this lawsuit isn't the board's willingness to traffic in thin allegations. It’s what they asked a judge to do. In government, legal action must be proportional. Instead, this Board sought sweeping gag orders that would have stripped David, Linda, and two other defendants of their First Amendment rights. The board demanded they be:
- Banned from coming within 1,000 feet of the MUD's public property.
- Banned from coming within 1,000 feet of board members' homes.
- Prohibited from making any public statements about the board members or contacting their employers.
- Prohibited from posting online about MUD contractors or contacting other clients of those contractors.
- Placed under a blanket ban prohibiting "any interference with the operation and duties" of the MUD.
These are not the requests of a board trying to solve a dispute. These are the demands of autocrats trying to silence critics. Having knocked on countless doors with David and Linda in the Texas heat, I can tell you they look nothing like the caricatures painted in these filings. Like all of us, they aren't perfect. But perfection isn't a prerequisite for participating in your own local government.
I have young kids, and I teach them that even when you feel legitimately wronged, you have to respond reasonably or else you lose the high ground. That principle is magnified when you are an elected official spending someone else's money. Whatever original grievance the board had, it was forfeited by the outrageous attempt to buy an unconstitutional gag order with public funds.
On January 30, Director Chris Rocco promised residents, “We have been assured by our attorney that...we will seek to be reimbursed by the defendants.” A few weeks ago, I asked Director Carroll Norrell if she genuinely believed the MUD could still win this lawsuit. Her answer: “Yes.” My message to the board? You’ve already lost. You just don’t know it yet.